Still alive, no rejoicing yet (sorry)

[gyges_ring]

I got bored while not attending a lecture and waiting for a tute, so I decided to write a post, because I haven't for a while

Comments

[nicholii]

Why should a nonconsensual vaginal examination be any worse than a nonconsensual anything* examination?

*Obviously checking someone's pulse is minor, but there are other things with similar invasiveness surely.

[tarpy]

Actually, as I understand it from my vague memories of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, non-consensual digital penetration is a form of rape according to the law.

[nicholii]

Yes, legally it is rape. I was more pointing out that it should not be seen as more an invasion of privacy. And if it is medically justified, then ok if similar examinations of unconscious people would be ok. That the problem is as much one about doing anything to someone who can't give consent.

[tarpy]

Which is always a touchy area in medicine, since a patient apparently has implied consent. Or something like that, Tom knows more about it.

[gyges_ring]

The short response: notions of consent are pretty much entirely notional: a laughable legal fiction preserved to make patients sue less.

[toast_is_lovely]

yah you're right. it's a really odd area. Generally if the penetration occurred in the course of an agreed upon examination (say of the vaginal area, or even, as in tom's case i think, of the patient as a whole - that is, she'd have to agree to a thorough examination before dipping into unconcisouness) - there is really no liability you can attach to a doctor. Even if the patient didn't give consent for that procedure, even if unconcious, even if you didn't have to use a probe etc.

on the other hand if they'd come in for a flu only....